Support NeoGAF

[Audioboxer]

Work builds character

Do you realise a lot of people in work are the ones with some sort of benefit support? They are working themselves into an "early grave" doing the jobs you probably don't want to do, but the country needs to be done (cleaning/retail/customer service/catering/low-end council jobs/etc). Often with families to try in support in a country with hardly any priority on affordable housing, all while TRYING to have small morsels of fun/enjoyment in life. Like a weekend day out! Like an occasional purchase on an electrical good! Etc. Top end stuff that, ain't it? Next, they'll be lining up for Mercedes and shopping in high-end London suit makers.

Heck, there is even a lot of disabled people out there doing low-end jobs part-time, some even full-time. But you know, they should just work harder, they just need a second job.

A welfare state exists because it's the best solution we've come up with to try and aid those in positions we don't want to be in. Yes, we try and raise minimum wages and what not, but like it or not the majority of jobs out there that most of the population are in either pay minimum wage on the dot or are hardly above it. There's little scope for pay rises or career furtherment, so people "live" on low wages.

And again, before anyone says "get an education bro", society needs all the jobs to be covered and sure, some people just aren't fit for higher education, whether it's a mix or upbringing/life factors, or some just not having the aptitude or even parental support to handle 4+ years of Uni/College. Even on that note, a society which wants to lump students with horrendous amounts of debt automatically chases off some from poor backgrounds who maybe could get a degree and be as capable as their fellow economists/bankers/doctors/nurses, but are riddled with anxiety about 30k+ of debt.

Then sure, we move onto those unemployed. Instead of just categorising them as all junkies and freeloaders, the bad apples analogy, many are in positions of serious hurting. Life regrets, depression, anxiety, and what not. Do we want them to remain like this from now until death? No, but as someone in the field of psychology, I can assure you compassion, understanding and motivation often work best. Not demonising, being overly critical and painting the vulnerable as devils that turn up at your front door to directly ask for your taxes. Tough love is a thing, but even tough love can be handled better than private return to work firms working on a for-profit basis acting like complete and utter bellends.

On that note, "tough love" from the mental health services would be best, but you know, massive cuts, underfunding and an ignorant/heartless approach to mental health by the UK seems to be the way forward. The irony forever being you would see reductions in the worst off if many got the mental help they needed, rather than being treated like zoo animals in an interview room asking if they can walk 10m.

 

[Theonik]

Work builds character

You could say...
Work Sets you Free.

e:

Arbeit macht frei

Scheisse.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Arbeit macht frei

You could say...
Work Makes you Free.

Not quite what I'm saying is it?

I'll add that you're more likely to value money when you've earned it too.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Close but that doesn't matter, taking from paul to pay peter makes no sense and isn't a valid platform in my opinion.

What do you think taxes are?

Edit: Although...

I remember when EMA was in place and I was living in poverty and that £30 a week meant I could actually enjoy my life a little on weekends, save for things and have fun with my girlfriend.

But fuck the chavs, sure.

I'm guessing this isn't the right answer to increase support.

 

[Theonik]

What do you think taxes are?

Civil servants should be just that apparently maybe they can introduce national service to lower government costs further! Have everyone do 5 years in HMRC. Builds character.

Not paying civil servants has absolutely no impact to the economy or private wages. None whatsoever.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I personally valued having EMA in sixth form, but I did not shed tears when it was scrapped.

It is the sort of policy that is the wrong solution to an important problem to tackle. Paying 16 year olds in money that went to the school's nearest takeaway (or at least a decent percent of it - it was pocket money) had advantages, but giving a larger investment of cash into families that really needed the help would have been wiser.

Not a good investment of money in a recession, anyway.

Couple of questions about Labour's manifesto:

How is it helping the poorest in society? Is there clear benefits reform etc?

Have they committed to ending the pay freeze?

 

[Aki-at]

The alternative being 'fuck em' those taxes don't affect me, raise them as much as you want.

Yeah attitude towards those who earn more than the rest of the population really hurts, now if you don't mind me I'm going to drive my Mercedes Benz to my 3rd dinner party this week as I cry myself to bed as the masses say hurtful things and can't enjoy the upper class lifestyle or basic necessities in life.

If you're on the same sort of income as me I really don't see how we can't take a few thousand pounds of "losses" to support a country that is desperately in need of it. For all the mutters of Labour's plan not working by whatever "evidence" the Conservative plan hasn't either. The majority of the people are just getting by, is that how society should function?

 

[War Peaceman]

EMA on its own is neither here nor there. I can see its value in certain circumstances, but also have to think it is far less efficient than almost any other form of welfare. But seen in a broader context where young people have been stripped of almost every benefit formerly had by them, it definitely has its value. The fact that the minimum wage is even gradated by age is absurd.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Apparently they had Steve Radford of the continuing Liberal Party on a screen whilst Clegg was on Daily Politics today. And Clegg told him to join the Conservatives.

Suffice to say this has entertained a few of my friends in the Liverpool Lib Dems who hate Radford's guts with a passion.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I hate to rag on it because I think it was valuable but something seemed really off, from my narrow experience, with who got EMA. I knew several people who ended up getting EMA if their parents were divorced or self-employed but who were from very wealthy families.

 

[Halph n Halph]

If minimum wage wasn't gradated by age , I doubt you would ever see an apprentice in construction or engineering again .
A first year apprentice offers no value even at the low wage they get if you spend their time in work teaching them and not using them as a cheap labourer.
At the point they become profitable they are generally rewarded with wage increases.
Edit.. minimum wage doesn't apply to apprenticeships until they reach 19.

 

[Spuck-uk]

I've always wondered what the argument about welfare is in the UK.

If welfare pays more than a job then of course some people will take advantage. However if this is happening then perhaps this says more about the wage gap and jobs being offered.

If someone can make more on welfare, the answer is not to cut welfare, it should be to offer incentives to work. If your welfare is x, and your pay is y, and y doesn't meet x, then maybe you should be offered welfare payment to go over x. Now if y is greater than x then stop paying x welfare.

Welfare doesn't pay more than a fulltime job, or even a part time job.

The problem comes when you have a job with 0 guaranteed hours.

But yes, yur idea does make sense, in essence it's a negative tax rate at low levels of income.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Well I remember when EMA was in place and I just think money can be better spent than on chavs who turn up in the morning to register before bunking the rest of their lessons. Fun fact btw - Lib Dems opposed EMA when it was in place. Don't know their policy on it now.

As for HB for under 21 - there are support for people under 21 who are homeless. But otherwise, if you don't earn enough to rent or aren't at uni, then live with your parents until you're 21 like the rest of the world does.

Yes because that's all it was, wasn't it? My EMA paid for my bus pass and my lunches, but no you're right it's just chavs buying bottles of White Lightning or whatever.

 

[TimmmV]

I'll add that you're more likely to value money when you've earned it too.

No, that's absolute shite sorry

You're more likely to value money when you have less of it, more likely to spend it on luxuries when you have a disposable income.

I hate to rag on it because I think it was valuable but something seemed really off, from my narrow experience, with who got EMA. I knew several people who ended up getting EMA if their parents were divorced or self-employed but who were from very wealthy families.

Same here. Everyone I knew (including myself) got it because their parents were divorced (and the same with maintenance grants at uni). Labours focus on household income to assess need wasn't really a good way of doing it

Still, it was a good policy that was probably implemented a little wastefully. Just means it needs to be implemented differently, not scrapped entirely

If minimum wage wasn't gradated by age , I doubt you would ever see an apprentice in construction or engineering again .
A first year apprentice offers no value even at the low wage they get if you spend their time in work teaching them and not using them as a cheap labourer.
At the point they become profitable they are generally rewarded with wage increases.
Edit.. minimum wage doesn't apply to apprenticeships until they reach 19.

Treat it as an investment that takes time to pay off then.

The hourly rate for apprenticeships (and some of the jobs it is used in) is disgustingly low.

 

[Burai]

I hate to rag on it because I think it was valuable but something seemed really off, from my narrow experience, with who got EMA. I knew several people who ended up getting EMA if their parents were divorced or self-employed but who were from very wealthy families.

Yeah, but we have the same thing now with the wealthy elderly still claiming their winter fuel allowance and free TV licences.

The question is, again, do we fuck over the people the scheme helps in order to punish the people who abuse the system?

 

[Camp Freddie]

I had a quick look at the "Funding Britain's Future" document.

It fails to assign any costs to nationalising any of the industries. Kinda surprising since this is his main populist policy that everyone apparently supports.
It also fails to assign any costs to the massive housebuilding programme they have planned.

I guess houses fund themselves, assuming they're sold and not rented, but I'm assuming that the people who own the post office, water companies, rail companies, etc. might need paying. Like, a lot of money. The post office alone raised over £3 billion when sold and it's worth a lot more now (market cap. £4.3BN with a quick google).

At least I assume Labour intend to pay for this stuff and Momentum won't be storming the gates of the Post Office and planting the Red Flag to reclaim the means of distribution in the name of the workers.

EDIT: Also, 10,000 police officers at a cost of £0.3BN in 2021-2022 (i.e. not averaged over 5 years of recruitment, but the actual annual cost in the final year when recruitment must have been completed), or 30K each. That includes employer taxes, pensions and equipment, so police officers' salaries will be much lower than £30K. Paging Dianne Abbott...

 

[hodgy100]

EMA contributed towards my travel costs to college. that was like £400 a year or something daft.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

No, that's absolute shite sorry

You're more likely to value money when you have less of it, more likely to spend it on luxuries when you have a disposable income.

Sure, I agree. But I'm not sure how that makes what I said "shite".

Edit:

It's like:

You're more likely to vote Tory if you're well off.

You're more likely to vote Tory if you're old.

Both true!

 

[Crispy75]

At least I assume Labour intend to pay for this stuff and Momentum won't be storming the gates of the Post Office and planting the Red Flag to reclaim the means of distribution in the name of the workers.

BRB, sharpening my sickle.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I think Labour's idea for nationalisation is that it won't 'cost' anything. The government takes out a low interest loan, uses that money to buy back bits of industries until they have all of what they want, and then only have a small amount of additional borrowing as the government is onboarding a lot of capital.

It's wonky, of course, because if Labour won the value of the to-be-nationalised companies will shoot up.

The real concern about nationalisation to me is that I am not convinced Labour would improve service. It seems like a dog chasing a car. What does it do with it once it has caught it?

And, of course, the REAL concern is Brexit.

Labour's manifesto commits them to a hard Brexit with a trade deal. They will thus ping pong back between the Commons and Europe until they have a scrap of paper.

The Tories want a strict and hard Brexit in a two year timeline, and they threaten to walk away if they don't get what they want.

Neither option is very good.

Lib Dems obviously want to be in the single market and have a second referendum, but as I'm not going to pretend we are going to win, that just represents the pro-EU option for voters, not something to hope happens.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Not quite what I'm saying is it?

I'll add that you're more likely to value money when you've earned it too.

You're more likely to value money when you're fucking broke.

Which you are when you're on the dole.

 

[Snowman]

Not quite what I'm saying is it?

I'll add that you're more likely to value money when you've earned it too.

Valuing money isn't a good thing. I would rather people value the things that money can be spent on.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I think Labour's idea for nationalisation is that it won't 'cost' anything. The government takes out a low interest loan, uses that money to buy back bits of industries until they have all of what they want, and then only have a small amount of additional borrowing as the government is onboarding a lot of capital.

It's wonky, of course, because if Labour won the value of the to-be-nationalised companies will shoot up.

The real concern about nationalisation to me is that I am not convinced Labour would improve service. It seems like a dog chasing a car. What does it do with it once it has caught it?

Are you saying that Corbyn is actually the Joker from the Dark Knight?

Valuing money isn't a good thing. I would rather people value the things that money can be spent on.

Wut

If you value it you won't waste it

 

[Spuck-uk]

I think Labour's idea for nationalisation is that it won't 'cost' anything. The government takes out a low interest loan, uses that money to buy back bits of industries until they have all of what they want, and then only have a small amount of additional borrowing as the government is onboarding a lot of capital.

It's wonky, of course, because if Labour won the value of the to-be-nationalised companies will shoot up.

The real concern about nationalisation to me is that I am not convinced Labour would improve service. It seems like a dog chasing a car. What does it do with it once it has caught it?

You don't run it needing to create year on year increasing profit, which means you put that money into improving services.

Other European countries do this just fine with their rail services, which are near universally better than our own. Get on a train in Germany or Czech Republic, the difference is amazing.

Worth mentioning we currently subsidise the privately owned rail networks to the tune of £5 Billion a year, which shores up their profits nicely.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Are you saying that Corbyn is actually the Joker from the Dark Knight?

I'd agree he's a clown.

Spoiler

heyooooooooo

Not going to argue that reinvesting profits is a big advantage of nationalisation. What I'd like to have seen is locking down the sort of improvements they expect to get from nationalisation, as that splits the ideological (bad) from the practical (good).

Speaking as someone who is fine with nationalising the railways if needed (and part of a party that wants the immediate emergency nationalisation of Southern to fix it).

 

[CyclopsRock]

Welfare doesn't pay more than a fulltime job, or even a part time job.

When people say "welfare", though, they aren't just talking about JSA. Almost 10x more money goes into housing benefit than job seekers, and those things combined absolutely can be more than a part time or full time job.

 

[TimmmV]

Sure, I agree. But I'm not sure how that makes what I said "shite".

Edit:

It's like:

You're more likely to vote Tory if you're well off.

You're more likely to vote Tory if you're old.

Both true!

I wasn't trying to prove what you said was shite, I was just giving a context where the "value of money" thing is valid.

Most people "feel like they earned" their money, including people who just inherit a fortune. Saying that a person values money more just because they worked for it just isn't true

The real concern about nationalisation to me is that I am not convinced Labour would improve service. It seems like a dog chasing a car. What does it do with it once it has caught it?

Even with Rail?

 

[Snowman]

Wut

If you value it you won't waste it

My point is that money shouldn't be a thing that you're trying to conserve, especially not as a 16 year old, it should be something that you spend, to have things of actual value.

I don't think it makes much difference how frivolously kids in school spend their £30 a week whether they've earned it or not.

 

[Audioboxer]

Valuing money isn't a good thing. I would rather people value the things that money can be spent on.

Kind of one and the same, although I understand you. "Valuing money" is often said as catch-all rhetoric to hit out at people you want to call "lesser beings" for not having 8 jobs, or for buying junk food/spending it on games/Sky TV.

A more idealised approach is trying to help people focus what income they have on bills/debt first, and then some attempts at having fun. Because, let us face it, using "value money" as a catch-all for the poor when people with cash to swim around in still fall "victim" to the human condition of blowing it is a bit ironic. People who are rich just scale up, and instead of buying "expensive" £60 Superdry hoodies, they buy £4k suits. Instead of £100+ a month going to SkyTV when that is a bit unaffordable, they're going off on Golf Trips or buying a boat. Rich people can ultimately blow their money as easily as poor people.

The "value of money" as a human teaching knows no boundaries. It's not just rhetoric to launch at poor people/those on benefits which some routinely do. As many rightfully say sometimes being dirt poor/homeless/or on benefits really is a massive lesson in the values of money. It's the steps to try and improve your life which is what you often need help with, not some suits up above beating you with a stick screaming "value money! value money! value money!". Lots of people on benefits already feel a lack of self-worth for being where they are. No one enjoys being poor. Ultimately as I said above the better results to try and improve mental well-being/perceptions and lift those up at the bottom needs to be done with compassion, care and understanding. Part of that may be help with prioritising bills/structured spending, but that too can be done without acting like a cunt screaming at someone for having a Sky TV subscription.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You don't run it needing to create year on year increasing profit, which means you put that money into improving services.

Other European countries do this just fine with their rail services, which are near universally better than our own. Get on a train in Germany or Czech Republic, the difference is amazing.

Worth mentioning we currently subsidise the privately owned rail networks to the tune of £5 Billion a year, which shores up their profits nicely.

Other European countries do this just fine with OUR rail services! Don't Deutsche Bahn run some of our franchises?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

When people say "welfare", though, they aren't just talking about JSA. Almost 10x more money goes into housing benefit than job seekers, and those things combined absolutely can be more than a part time or full time job.

That probably says more about the current housing and job markets than it does about the welfare state though.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Somewhat worrying that neither main party has commented on the rise in inflation today, unless I missed it.

 

[Moosichu]

Other European countries do this just fine with OUR rail services! Don't Deutsche Bahn run some of our franchises?

Yep. They own Arriva - and use the profits to subsidise their own transport. As the British government subsidises trains here, in a roundabout way, British taxes subsidise the publicly owned German transport system.

 

[D4Danger]

Somewhat worrying that neither main party has commented on the rise in inflation today, unless I missed it.

it's being explained away because of when easter fell this year and a bunch of stuff like air fares got lumped in with it. I don't think anyone is too worried.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yep. They own Arriva - and use the profits to subsidise their own transport. As the British government subsidises trains here, in a roundabout way, British taxes subsidise the publicly owned German transport system.

Ridiculous. Hope we Take Back Control of that quick smart.

 

[boxoctosis]

Somewhat worrying that neither main party has commented on the rise in inflation today, unless I missed it.

Inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you've a mortgage, higher inflation erodes the value of that debt more quicker. If you're on a fixed pension it erodes the value of that more quickly too.

Very crudely, higher inflation tends to favour the young over the old.

 

[Theonik]

Other European countries do this just fine with OUR rail services! Don't Deutsche Bahn run some of our franchises?

They run other UK public services too. Thanks Tories.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)

(via @PanelbaseMD / 12 - 15 May)

Source

So with a polling model that got updated after 2015 because the polls were off, specifically to lessen the Labour vote, Labour is polling higher than Milliband got?

 

[jimbobsmells]

Other European countries do this just fine with OUR rail services! Don't Deutsche Bahn run some of our franchises?

East Anglia main line is run by 'Greater Anglia' which is 60% owned by Abellio (Dutch), and 40% by Mitsui (Japan). Wish it was the other way round tbh service is utter shite. A Japanese run line might be half decent.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Other European countries do this just fine with OUR rail services! Don't Deutsche Bahn run some of our franchises?

Absolutely, China as well IIRC. McDonnell brought this up when he asked about rail nationalisation the other day

 

[Spuck-uk]

Source

So with a polling model that got updated after 2015 because the polls were off, specifically to lessen the Labour vote, Labour is polling higher than Milliband got?

1% higher IIRC my 2015 figures right.

This is, of course, bad for Jeremy Corbyn because reasons.

 

[Ghost]

Source

So with a polling model that got updated after 2015 because the polls were off, specifically to lessen the Labour vote, Labour is polling higher than Milliband got?

 

[DECK'ARD]

Election news completely dwarfed by Sonic news today, won't be paying attention.

 

[D4Danger]

don't do this to yourself. Tories are going to win by a mile.

 

[*Splinter]

1% higher IIRC my 2015 figures right.

This is, of course, bad for Jeremy Corbyn because reasons.

Polling 14 points behind the conservatives is bad for Corbyn, yes.

 

[Audioboxer]

Source

So with a polling model that got updated after 2015 because the polls were off, specifically to lessen the Labour vote, Labour is polling higher than Milliband got?

If Labour can keep Abbott off the TV then Corbyn can use the power of memes to keep creeping up

Tbh though, an actual win for Labour at this point would be preventing a Tory majority. That seems unlikely, though. Even Scotland will throw in a few Tory seats to help this time around.

They aren't going to win so they need to do their best to improve on past years and crucially fend off that majority. Incredibly unlikely that actually happening, the LE's will be a good indicator what is going to happen in the GE's. Brexit 2.0 is going to landslide the elections even if Corbyn wasn't the leader. Him being the leader just makes things worse.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

East Anglia main line is run by 'Greater Anglia' which is 60% owned by Abellio (Dutch), and 40% by Mitsui (Japan). Wish it was the other way round tbh service is utter shite. A Japanese run line might be half decent.

Absolutely, China as well IIRC. McDonnell brought this up when he asked about rail nationalisation the other day

See that really frigs me off >:-(

They run other UK public services too. Thanks Tories.

Which ones?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Even with Rail?

I'd argue especially rail. The longterm problems with the UK's railways (namely capacity) are basically unfixable due to decisions made about a hundred and fifty years ago. The reason I say it's unfixable is because, well, it's a network - it all works together, so replacing one bit with, say, a wider track gauge that supports heavier (ie double decker, as in much of Europe) trains would immediately make that bit incompatible with the rest. That's ok for small chunks like the Eurostar but when we're talking about domestic services, it's basically a no go. And that's to say nothing of how difficult doing that even on one line would be - it would need to be a parallel line (unless they're ok with shutting down an entire line for the ~5 years it would take to build), which is a whole HS2's worth of Nimby's complaining about a line going through their field/house/town/duck house/whatever. These lines then terminate in some busy city centre where 15 different lines all terminate because the Victorians went mad building train lines (which is the reason why the South of London is so utterly fucked, because it's such a criss cross of tracks that all you need is one duff signal and a whole bunch of lines get fucked, even ones that don't go through the stations where the signal failed!) and you're making it worse because you're building a second (remember, it's parallel) line that's even bigger, going into the same place. Then at the end of it, you "just" have the same as you did before only with bigger trains that won't run on any other line. And incidentally it's Network Rail, who are still nationalised, who are responsible for these things anyway. Private companies aren't responsible for infrastructure.

All these things are basically a problem for whoever's running it, whether they're nationalised or not. And almost all the problems we face - over crowding, signal failures, cancellations, faire increases - can be traced back in one way or another to an inelastic capacity.

That probably says more about the current housing and job markets than it does about the welfare state though.

Yeah, but as long as people with jobs need to pay their rent (or mortgage) it remains an issue.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Oh boy Standard's headline. 'Corbyn flies the red flag'

 

[Maledict]

EDIT: Also, 10,000 police officers at a cost of £0.3BN in 2021-2022 (i.e. not averaged over 5 years of recruitment, but the actual annual cost in the final year when recruitment must have been completed), or 30K each. That includes employer taxes, pensions and equipment, so police officers' salaries will be much lower than £30K. Paging Dianne Abbott...

Just on this but, I dont understand it. I commission extra police officers from the Mayorof London. It's £60k for a standard PC with ON costs, and that goes up every year obviously. Labour *has* these numbers - the Mayor is labour! They KNOW that number is utterly and completely farcical.

I can only assume some dimwit has looked up what a Pc takes home on the web and calculated it based off that. Which is totally worthless because the additional costs for police officers basically double their salary costs once you take it all into account.